tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post5260908471198471059..comments2016-06-25T19:29:59.191-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Protestant Exegesis is Profoundly Affected by Overreactions to Catholic Positions (Example: Peter as the "Rock")Dave Armstronghttps://plus.google.com/115516270318198347148noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-66650598436953154112014-09-24T13:10:00.563-04:002014-09-24T13:10:00.563-04:00Who speaks for protestants? Impossible to determin...Who speaks for protestants? Impossible to determine? It is clear that the ECF believed Peter was THE head of the church and the apostles. Christ re-named Simon &quot;Peter&quot; in response to Simon&#39;s confession of faith in Christ the Rock, the Foundation Stone . You will read ECF speaking of the rock of Peter&#39;s confession, and of course, Cephas the rock derives his authority from and must never contradict the Rock Who is Christ; it simply can&#39;t be ignored that Peter was re-named Kepha and exercised authority among the apostles: he was always named first when the apostles were listed (Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) -- sometimes it was only &quot;Peter and those who were with him&quot; (Luke 9:32); he was the apostles&#39; spokesman (Matthew 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:69, Acts 4:1-13, Acts 2:37-41, Acts 5:15); he exhorted the other bishops (1 Peter 5:1); he was there at the most important moments (Matthew 14:28-32, Matthew 17:24, Mark 10:28); he was the first to proclaim Christ&#39;s divinity (Matthew 16:16); he was the first to preach the Gospel after Pentecost (Acts 2:14-40), thus starting the whole &quot;Church era&quot;; he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7); he had the revelation that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48); he alone was told by Christ after His resurrection to &quot;Feed My lambs; feed My sheep&quot; (John 21:15-17) and strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:31-32).<br /><br /><br />If Christ meant someone other than Peter, than he would not have addressed him with “You are Peter” before His use of this rock. He would have said “I am Christ and upon this rock I will build my Church.” Since He was addressing Peter, than there is no need for Him to say “and upon YOU I will build the Church.” He is then free to use a metaphor “this rock” in making it clear why he chose Peter. it is better that Christ refers to Peter as “this rock” rather than “you” because the Church is not built merely on the person of Peter but also on his faith that was given to him by the Father (Mt 16:17).tom bordeauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14227757521473628251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-75778893239171265812009-07-11T12:04:31.186-04:002009-07-11T12:04:31.186-04:00I know that; your point is well taken; but the bal...I know that; your point is well taken; but the balance needed to be pointed out; because the argument of &quot;Peter = the Rock&quot; vs. &quot;Peter is not the rock&quot; (whether Christ Himself or the doctrine/faith/confession/revelation that Peter speaks) is not the main issue of dispute between RCC and Protestantism; it is what one does with that claim.Ken Templehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-32791139817261328882009-07-11T11:06:07.313-04:002009-07-11T11:06:07.313-04:00The post wasn&#39;t about papal succession or even...The post wasn&#39;t about papal succession or even the papacy per se, but about whether Peter is the Rock. I proved my point about Protestant overreaction.<br /><br />It&#39;s always good to take note of the goal of a piece of writing, and particular subject matter.Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-19964723295207655372009-07-11T10:19:32.396-04:002009-07-11T10:19:32.396-04:00The D. A. Carson (Matthew in Expostitor&#39;s Comm...The D. A. Carson (Matthew in Expostitor&#39;s Commentary, volume 8) quote on page 368 needs to be balanced with what he says a few paragraphs later:<br /><br />&quot;The text says nothing about Peter&#39;s successors, infallibility, or exclusive authority. These late interpretations entail insuperable exegetical and historical problems - e.g. after Peter&#39;s death, his &quot;successor&quot; would have authority over a surviving apostle, John.&quot; <br /><br />later, on page 374, Carson writes, concerning Matthew 16:19:<br /><br />&quot;. . . notions of hierarchy or sacerdotalism are simply irrelevant to the text.&quot; <br /><br />see the larger discussion from pages 363 to 375 - then one can understand what he is saying.Ken Templehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-58267476913972846382009-07-07T23:44:15.728-04:002009-07-07T23:44:15.728-04:00You&#39;re welcome, and thank you for your kind co...You&#39;re welcome, and thank you for your kind comment.Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-27774227925512069862009-07-07T18:48:45.013-04:002009-07-07T18:48:45.013-04:00Thank you so much for this! I&#39;m beginning a d...Thank you <i>so</i> much for this! I&#39;m beginning a debate with a Protestant friend of mine on the Papacy, so the timing of your article is perfect. God bless.Gregoryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03982931507445593579noreply@blogger.com